Talk:Instrumentalism

RfC on "Instrumentalism."
Has the author violated WP protocols? I have been accused of violating WP protocols in this and other articles. I replaced an accurate article, violating WP: NPOV, NOR, SYN:NOR, UNDUE, OWN. I welcome the opportunity to show why these charges are mistaken. All of the elements of my case appear in the “Instrumentalism” lede, which now replaces my article in order to restore the status quo anti which I replaced in 2014.

The present lede defines instrumentalism as an “interpretation” or “theory” that “scientific theory is merely a tool” of prediction that says nothing about unobservable reality. It claims this proposition was introduced by Duhem in 1906, and is the prevailing theory-of-theory in physics today. It then states that instrumentalism is a form of anti-realism—the “demise” of which is claimed in the historical discussion that follows. Thus INSTRUMENTALISM IS BOTH ALIVE AND DEAD—a paradox stated as a fact. This characterization of instrumentalism in the original and present article is inaccurate, which explains my decision to replace.TBR-qed (talk) 14:42, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

In detail, calling a theory a tool makes it a value-free fact, neither good nor bad, true nor false, right nor wrong—a means that works conditionally to achieve ends. Physicists today are instrumentalists when they consider a theory useful, without concern for its reality: INSTRUMENTALISM LIVES.

BUT, if a theory works—affirming a consequent by turning a hypothesis into a fact—philosophers claim it confirms the existence of unobservable reality. The theory becomes a true proposition expressing a natural kind, an end in itself. ANTI-REALIST INSTRUMENTALISM IS DEAD for philosophers.

Both positions assume a fact-value distinction that permits scholars to be realist and antirealist in turn. They are instrumentalists when they claim the right to use empirically unrealistic premises in theory construction. They are not instrumentalists when they claim that successful theories have ontologically realistic conclusions.

As soon as I read the original lede, I recognized this paradox and the obfuscation of contested definitions. I knew that John Dewey had criticized this paradoxical definition of instrumentalism in the 1930s, and I had lived through its debate among social scientists in the last half of the century. I tried to add my observations to the original article but found its material largely irrelevant to explaining the current paradox. That is why I replaced the physics instrumentalism with the social, and eliminated the pre-existing article.

My article opened with definitions by Dewey—a practitioner—and Popper—a critic. For Dewey, instrumentalism meant theories must have empirically real assumptions but not ontologically real conclusions. For Popper, it meant theories can have empirically unreal assumptions but must have ontologically real conclusions. I then document that this incoherent definition continues to be debated by followers of the two men, leaving the modern meaning of instrumentalism incoherent.

I found other articles bearing the adjective “instrumental” repeating the same paradox in various forms, and I documented their common core. All assume the independence of means from ends and show instrumental and value rationality contaminating itself.

For these reasons, I deny that I have violated the above mentioned WP protocols. I obey NPOV by presenting conflicting opinions impartially without cherrypicking synthesis. I obey NOR by reporting ongoing debates actually using the label instrumentalism. I await reasoned responses.TBR-qed (talk) 14:50, 31 October 2018 (UTC)
 * This isn't a properly-formed RFC. Read WP:RFC.  First, RFCs are about article content, not user conduct; you can't request an RFC on a user (not even yourself.)  Second, RFCs must be neutrally-worded, which this certainly isn't (the statement must also be 'brief', which yours isn't.)  Third, and most importantly, RFCs are for specific changes.  You have to indicate specific things you want to change and how (or the specific changes people have objected to that you want feedback on.)  Sweeping discussion of a rewrite to the entire article is outside the scope of what an RFC can reasonably provide feedback on. And yes, I recognize the irony that you are complaining that users keep quoting policy at you and now I'm responding to your attempt to invoke an RFC to resolve that problem by quoting the RFC policy at you - but it really isn't likely that an RFC structured this way is going to produce useful feedback.  A good RFC would ask a simple question like "should we attribute instumentalism to Dewey", say.  You need to slow down, address individual disputes one by one, and open an RFC for them individually if necessary if that's not going anywhere.  --Aquillion (talk) 05:37, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Poor entry
Professional philosopher of science here. This article is exceptionally poor. Remarkably, it even claims that Duhem is the father of instrumentalism! I don't think there's any way of saving this one. I suggest comparing with a recent encyclopaedia or handbook entry on instrumentalism, from someone who identifies as an instrumentalist (e.g. Rowbottom or Stanford). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 42.3.179.16 (talk) 11:30, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I reached your conclusion that this entry is poor and beyond saving in 2014 and replaced it. OMNIPAEDISTA accused me of replacing an adequate entry by one violating many WP protocols.  He reverted my replacement and refuses to discuss my defense against his charges—see our exchanges on “Original synthesis” above.  If you are willing to spend the time, I would appreciate your judgment of the legitimacy of my defense.  Leaving issues related to instrumental reasoning in this unsettled state is a disservice to Wikipedia readers.TBR-qed (talk) 15:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Induction & deduction
WP DEPENDS ON INDUCTION & DEDUCTION. THEIR MEANING SHOULD BE FIRM. This encyclopedia accepts the premise of enumerative induction that the more editors who agree on the content of an article, the more accurate and useful that content. Induction is practiced on every TALK page. Editors generalize from a few observations, and deduce concrete conclusions from their generalizations.

WP contains 4 repetitive and fragmentary articles on induction: [Inductive reasoning], [The problem of induction]; [New riddle of induction],[Inductivism]. I would like to rectify this chaotic situation by rewriting and merging these 4 articles, retaining only the reasoning title. I ask you—a participant in relevant TALK pages—to judge my rewrite/merge project: SHOULD I PROCEED? Below is the current proposed outline:

Definitions. Induction generalizes conceptually; deduction concludes empirically.

[David Hume], philosopher condemner.

[Pierre Duhem], physicist user.

[John Dewey], philosopher explainer.

[Bertrand Russell], philosopher condemner.

[Karl Popper], philosopher condemner.

Steven Sloman, psychologist explainer.

Lyle E. Bourne, Jr., psychologist user.

[Daniel Kahneman], psychologist user.

[Richard H. Thaler] economist user.

Please respond at Talk:Inductive reasoning. TBR-qed (talk) 16:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

[moved 1 comment by from here to Talk:Inductive_reasoning, jb.]  [moved it back here, since it doesn't belong to merge discussion, see below. Sorry for the confusion, jb.]

Criticism
Criticism? - I wanted to include a section with criticism against instrumentalism, but saw the controversy in this article and decided to ask for guidance first. I'm a new WP editor and not an expert in the field. My intention was to include the critique by David Deutsch at the beginning of "The fabric of reality", where he argues that scientific theories stripped of their explanatory aspects would only be of limited use, and that instrumentalism is not how scientist work in practice. I understand that Deutsch's book is not an academic work of philosophy, but I think that the article would be more valuable if linked to current debates in modern science. - Alan Islas (talk) 05:26, 6 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Deutsch is a reliable source, so by all means summarize his view. We tend to avoid sections named "criticism" as it sounds one-sided, so better to have something along the lines of "alternative views" or "reception by scientists". It would obviously be best to include two or three such viewpoints rather than one. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:28, 17 November 2020 (UTC)